Author Topic: Pristinas Perilous Errors (Read 14220 times)

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #20 on:** January 16, 2012, 10:05:32 AM »

Quote from: Simple Catholic

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: Cupertino
Speaking of anonymity. So interesting that Fr. Ramolla and Rev. Mr. Hall two years ago published an article on their SGGINFO site that scathingly professed that anonymity was cowardly:

"Anonymity is a tool of cowards"

"LET NO ONE BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY WHO WRITES OR POSTS ANONYMOUSLY. Period."

The article is still accessible on-line:
www.vovwatch.com/sgg-archives/articles/anonymous.htm

I was indeed surprised to see that that article was published on Jan. 13, 2010.

Yet on the same site they had only just published - wait for it --- an anonymous Letter to the Editors from a parishioner on Nov. 26, 2009!

Both are still there in the archives.

I can't recall; was it published that Ramolla and Hall ran the SGGINFO site, i.e. were the editors?

Can't say for certain, but there's a strong suspicion: the St. Albert the Great site developed a few months later followed a very similar format, and Bernie Hall was the editor for the chapel site. It was obvious that one was used as the template for the other.

The ANONYMOUS letter after the condemnation of ANONYMOUS letters was a good laugh. I shot a note off to the "webmaster' of the site to let them know the inconsistent standard did not go unnoticed, and received a reply from . . . Bernie Hall!

Interesting who the reply came from.

As far as I could ascertain, from the site, the identity of the Editors was anonymous on the site, which I also found noteworthy.

What justification, if any, was given for the apparent hypocrisy, or inconsistency?

Simple Catholic · « **Reply #21 on:** January 16, 2012, 10:07:07 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Of historical interest, at least, is the fact that the domain vovwatch.com was registered as a domain name on 1/13/11, the very day that this article on anonymity was published.

The very same day that long-running ODE thread was deleted by Matthew; the same day Matthew imposed on Eamon and SJB to make a summary of charges with accompanied proof for each charge. Both men never came through with it, but vovwatch became coincidentally a reality and the beginning of a major project that very day. Hall/Ramolla gave vovwatch permission to post things that were once on sgginfo.com.

Quote from: Matthew, on the same day vovwatch was born elsewhere,
"I want Gladius, SJB, or anyone else who is familiar with the Cincinnati, OH situation to come up with a CONCISE summary of what Fr. Cekada/Bishop Dolan have done to date.

. . .

"Long story short: This thread is getting deleted. I want Gladius and those familiar with SGG to come up with something to replace it with -- I guess I'll have to give you a few days."

Recall how SGGGINFO was shut down with great fanfare. Ostensibly, it was because it had 'done its job', but, in reality, it was merely intended to separate the day to day 'battles' from the spiritual apostolate of the newly established St. Albert chapel. Not surprisingly, the vast collection of 'evidence' on SGGINFO, after a respectable amount of time had passed (apparently it was assumed that we all have extremely short memories!), the SGGINFO collection appeared as an archive on VoV Watch.

What is truly amazing, though, is that the vitriol and rhetoric survives to this day, well over two years since the proponents predicted that Dolan and Cekada were about to 'skip town', and that SGG would soon be history. Well, they're still there, and there are no indications that they're going anywhere. Moreover, not a few who'd left in the heat of the battle have found their way back.

Simple Catholic · « **Reply #22 on:** January 16, 2012, 10:13:53 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Interesting who the reply came from.

As far as I could ascertain, from the site, the identity of the Editors was anonymous on the site, which I also found noteworthy.

What justification, if any, was given for the apparent hypocrisy, or inconsistency?

He didn't address it. The response avoided any discussion of it, and instead was a polite, brief justification for their campaign against SGG and Bp. Dolan/Fr. Cekada.

I may still have the email. I'd be surprised if I don't still have it; I rarely get rid of anything!

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #23 on:** January 16, 2012, 10:16:16 AM »

There probably will be a continuation or likely even a heightening of the obfuscation and rhetoric (to put it mildly) from certain quarters, lest more people find their way back to SGG due to the Petko scandal.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #24 on:** January 16, 2012, 11:49:47 PM »

I'm not convinced that Father Ramolla was supporting the current VoV site. The fact that the lay agitators turned on him doesn't fit with the impression some people here have had of Father Ramolla's ties with VoV.

Like any Priest, I would imagine he's too overextended and occupied with more important matters to be trolling around the internet. An independent Priest has only so much control of what people do nowadays, and there are plenty of examples of Priests who are not cognizant of the subversive activities of the people to whom they are administering the Sacraments, or unable to stop them if they are cognizant. This does not, however, excuse any negligence on the part of the Priest.

Just as one side speculated that Father Cekada was aiding and abetting the LayPopes site of Joseph McKenzie, so now people speculate regarding Father Ramolla's ties with the current VoV site: it's all mere speculation.

Father Hall is a different story, since it is painfully obvious that the webmaster styles, arrangements, fonts, etc., of VoV are similar to such sites as Breviary.net and the Tyburn website (which has a link on VoV Watch). Simple Catholic's account of the email from Hall further substantiates what has been my impression for some time about now-Father Hall's involvement in this whole mess.